Village
-
Posts
1,106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Village
-
-
Seriously Lauren and Weather ship, energy security is a fundamental concern for any nation state. By localising energy production you secure access to that energy.
Thankyou for your support,
-
I will be pleased to. Currently am in the process of answering BornFrom The Void with links. I worked in the past on a few projects with Authorities and the threat of flooding due to the sea level rise and thats how i know the rate of rise is pretty constant. Its a myth that the rate of rise is increasing.
-
The whole flavour of your post has nothing to do with the subject.
the subject of this thread is ....The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming
It clearly is Taboo here if one cant ask difficult questions without personal attacks
My post was not a rant. It was a simple question......Bearing in mind that the sea level rate of change is not changing; (please note that you have not read my post correctly I did not state that the sea level is not rising) What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?
Its a sensible question. Its not rude, its not a rant.
-
Conspiracy theory? Maybe you may think, but I dont.
Its in the news and what is happening in the real world. Its absolutely obvious if one can fill in the gaps between the lines.
New sources of oil are sought because demand is high. Nothing unusual about this.
-
Oil as a form of energy will end very soon IMO.
It wont end because of a crackpot theory that the world will heat up and we will all drown as sea levels rise. There is no sign of this.
It wont end because we exhaust the supply. There is hundreds of years of supply.
It will end for security reasons. The west will not be held to ransom and risk our way of life. It's too prescious. This is the real reason for promoting alternative energy useage. Dont be fooled by the claptrap.
-
You can ignore the question or muddy the waters if you like. Its a simple enough question.
The 3mm figure is relative to sea level change only. The figure would be 6mm currently with techtonic play and rates of isostatic rebound taken into acount.
-
For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate;
Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues.
What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?
-
The AGW claptrap is simply pure politics and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
The only reason that science seems to be a part of it is because the huge finances involved have skewed the efforts of all scientific persuations by encouraging reports on the subject. Basically if you want funding on any thesis all you do is link your work to Global Warming and hey presto! you have your funding. This is the reason why over the past decade or so, virtually every new report all comes back to Mankind warming the planet via CO2 release. Without that vital link then there wont be the funding.
Ever wondered why every concievable change in the environment is our fault? Well now you have your answer.
Its also the reason why it's taboo to suggest that the theory of AGW might actually be a theory. There are too many people out there who are now bankrolled by the theory being sold as a fact. If too many people out there ask too many questions and cause a problem to the whole gravy train then livelyhoods and reputations will come crashing down like a pack of cards.
But unfortunately that is precisely what will happen. The theory has already been promoted too far and it is in decline. The Climategate incident was an example of that. The IPCC being caught red handed promoting a blatant lie about the Himalayan glacier retreat was another. Heck....even the name Global Warming had to be changed because somebody pointed out the unfortunate fact that some places in the world are getting colder. That really damaged the IPCC and so they renamed it Climate Change. Trouble is ...the climate has always changed so nothing new there.
-
A new study has found that wind power is unreliable and does not give value for money.
"But wind power is unreliable and requires back-up gas power stations to maintain a consistent electricity supply, the Civitas think-tank study found.
It means energy users pay twice – once for the ‘window-dressing’ of renewables and again for fossil fuels the energy sector continues to rely on."
Read more:
http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1ix9GDVtTIts not news to me....I am on the net quoted for warning of this for the past decade.
Further, they are still missing the real point......the times of highest demand are during extremes of temperature. In this country that is always under the influence of High pressure or a Coll.
Isnt that the one time when the wind doesnt blow? Think of cold frosty or foggy nights when radiation cooling takes place and everyone reaches for the thermostat!...are the turbine blades likely to be idle? damned right they are.
My propossal was to reduce the size of the turbines by 80% and sink them into the ocean currents where the tides never stop flowing. Its a total no-brainer IMO. Problem is that politicians who know nothing about the subject were pressurised by green groups into wind turbines asap. We therefore got the cheap and quick option. The Green groups can also be blamed for the reason we produce too much CO2 in the first place because they pressurised previous governments to get rid of clean nuclear power too.
basiclly this should be another lesson to governments to be wary of the kneejerk green politics which are all about semantics and little about common sense policy.
-
Harp seals on thin ice after 32 years of warming
DURHAM, N.C -- Warming in the North Atlantic over the last 32 years has significantly reduced winter sea ice cover in harp seal breeding grounds, resulting in sharply higher death rates among seal pups in recent years, according to a new Duke University-led study.
"The kind of mortality we're seeing in eastern Canada is dramatic. Entire year-classes may be disappearing from the population in low ice years – essentially all of the pups die," said David W. Johnston, research scientist at the Duke University Marine Lab. "It calls into question the resilience of the population."
The study, published today in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, is the first to show that seasonal sea ice cover in all four harp seal breeding regions in the North Atlantic has declined by as much as 6 percent per decade since 1979, when satellite records of ice conditions in the region began.
Isnt this the same country where annual Seal pup clubbing is legal?
-
Village, don't patronise me.
You can be greedy and just look for another planet to live on and then do exactly the same thing all over again, but I'd much rather at least TRY and see if we can live and do our best to look after the ONLY PLANET WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
That doesn't mean we can't progress, it's not an either or situation. All i know is I don't want to pursue a goal to creating a new planet to live on and throw everything into it at the expense of everything else and then find out that actually doing that has actually sped up the process of degredation and I've run out of time to find an alternative. That would then leave essentially dying in a pit of my own s**t. I'd rather take a little longer to reach that goal, but actually reach it and then I'd also have the plus of being able to use what I've learned to make my future planet a much nicer and longer exisiting place to live.
Lauren, its got nothing to do with being greedy. Thats your skew, thats simply what you are saying now because you have a comfortable existence right now.
Its about looking after the human race ... you can pretend all you like that you prefer to put the likes of butterfles, rats, moles, trees, lesser spotted tad poles and the like but it doesnt wash with me.
When the chips are down you will do everything in your powers to put yourself first and ensure your survival. If you dont do this then you will be letting the whole of us down...your species. Pretend all you like but you will choose your survival over everything else right up until your last desperate gasp for air. I have no doubt about this whatsoever. You have the same affliction that we all do, its the way all living things are programed, you have no choice in the matter....you will put yourself first ... the rest is just hot air. You dont kid me.
-
Yes, we will be safe from whatever befits this planet in future years if we have the alternative to get off and away.
Please remind me that I never want to be a passenger on a plane next to you when there is a sudden loss in cabin pressure. Clearly you wont be able to help anyone with their oxgen mask because you wasted time not ensuring that you first had fitted yours.
Its the first principal in any emergency. You failed.
-
And this is the thing for me. Instead of going 'well we can't prove it so let's just carry on', surely it's better to say 'Ok, we can't prove it, but it's not a good idea to pollute and consume at the current rate like we are anyway, so how about we do the best we can so that 20 years down the line if we find out that actually we do have a big effect we can at least know that we have tried our best to slow down the process and keep this beautiful planet going for a little longer'?
What on earth do we have to lose by doing the latter? Nothing, as far as i can see.
In that case I personally think you are missing the whole point. We have absolutely everything to lose.
Some talk of the precautionary principal. However, in being cautious in whatever we do we should be mindful that we dont slow up the speed of development because in doing so we may just miss the most precautionary aspect of our time here.
In simple terms ......when that next Meteor makes a direct hit, or when volcanic activity rises to overproduce atmospheric mercury levels or during the pole reversal when all life may well become infertile as gama radiation levels increase....There will be no rejoicing at having cut CO2 output at the expence of our only chance to have mastered a sustainable living alternative in space.
You can cry all you like then but it will be too late, even if it does finally dawn on some that the real meaning of the precautionary principal was hyjacked and valuable time was lost.
Heres another one for you to get your mind around......To help others....first one must help oneself!
We should make sure that we have our own insurance in the bag first before we look to save anything else. Its a dangerous planet we live on and currently we have no way to escape it. You can worry about what we may or may not do to the planet ourselves or whether one theory may or may not upset the climate. But dont forget that the main concern is not a theory...it is a fact...we can be wiped out by a tremendous upheavel at any time, this should be our real concern. No maybe's, we know from the past that something will happen again, its just a matter of time.
This is our time, we should not waste it while we have the chance.
-
Britain's cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
Climate sceptics are failing to understand the most basic meteorology - that weather is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends
The problem with this statement is that everytime for the past two decades extreme weather events have been portrayed as evidence of climate change by protagonists. So your argument rings hollow.
Its only been dragged out now because clearly over the past decade the temperatures in the UK have stopped rising at the same rate and have been noted as falling at times over recent years. Climate warming here in the UK should no longer be an issue. But of course being self sufficiant in energy is a political issue and then climate theory is being used to sell 'save the planet' claptrap to millions who dont have the time of day to find out the truth for themselves.
One final point about the Gaurdian newspaper. They have for decades been lambasting Euro sceptics in the same way and labelling them as 'little Englanders'. The Guardian has now admitted they got it all wrong on the Euro now that the penny has finally dropped.
I fully expect a one hundred and eighty degree u-turn with their persistant need to promote manmade global warming theoretics as a fact. The tide has already turned against the theory because the general public and large numbers of the scientific community are now becoming much more sceptical.
I personally would welcome a public inquirey about the way in which UK taxpayers money has been used to promote a theory as a fact simply to encourage the payment of even more new climate taxes. If this had happened in any other country we would call it corruption.
-
With respect Village, this snipped part of your post is one of the finest demonstrations I've seen (in a very, very long time) of what you are accusing others of being.
Not only is it incredibly rude (read the code of conduct and stick to it) but shows a woeful lack of knowledge of the entire climate change debate and subject. I would suggest you do some more research and learning; clearly there is much you haven't read. Perhaps you would then like to explain (in a much politer manner) why you disagree with the theory of AGW.
Hello Jethro,
My point is that the subject of climate , it's relationship with the physical dynamics of fluids and gasses is an enormous subject. The whole indepth subject has been reduced to one tiny virtually irelevant entity in the last two decades. All based on one unproven theory. I have spent forty years studying the subject and two decades exploring every avenue of the CO2 theoretics and I can talk the hind legs of a Donkey about the subject in depth. However, the more I studied, the more I learned, the more questions I found the theory raised than it answered.
If you or anyone really wants to talk about the theory of the so called 'greenhouse effect' then the very first thing one needs to know is that there is no such relationship with Greenhouses because there is no physical barrier like a glass sheet. Secondly and no less importantly, water vapour is a thousand times more significant than CO2 within the process.
So why isnt anyone discussing water vapour if one really wants to understand climate and the regulation and distribution of extremes in global temperature?
Why has the whole science now been delegated to the backroom while the only thing some wish to discuss is another man's fanciful theory which has skewed the whole scientific agenda for too long.
If one wishes to demonstrate ones knowledge of this enormous subject then lets leave the theoretics to those who dont know anything else.
This was Attenborough's mistake too IMO.
-
His worry is that change is happening too rapidly for species to adapt. He's never said that we should freeze the climate where it is now as he's far too intelligent, and too scientifically literate, to think that such a thing is possible unless the entire human population disappears off the planet in a puff of smoke and takes all the Co2 we've pumped into the atmosphere in the last few hundred years with it.
I dont think Attenborough has demonstrated he is clever enough on the subject of meteorology. He has not studied atmospheric dynamics and climate before backing an inconclusive theory. If he had done so he would know very well that the rate of climate change we are experiencing today and for many hundreds of years is very little compared with what nature can throw at us. There have been many occassions in the past when climate change has been extremely dramatic. By contrast we are living in very stable climate times. Its actually been unusually quite stable for many hundreds of years with no large scale systemic shocks of the sort that would really bring about abrupt climate change.
If we are to believe that the little ice age was 'intensified' by the reforrestation of meso America after we'd killed off the civilisations there (allowing for rapid re-growth of the jungle and increased CO2 uptake) then if we did have'issues' that dramatically reduced population then we would see CO2 being taken up by the 'regrowth' in areas we have developed/cultivated?
Why continually bang on about CO2? There is a whole science out there which is being ignored and replaced with one man's theory which has been adopted by meteorologically illiterate types for political reasons or individuals with little to add themselves. Whenever one simply resorts to the same old CO2 claptrap it simply highlights ones lack of a basic understanding of climate science IMO.
I appologise if this sounds harsh because its not really aimed at you personally....Its just that CO2 is now such a yawn for members who know only too well that CO2 only amounts to about one percentile of a whole plethora of climate drivers.
-
He never maintained that conservation was about conserving the climate as it is now. Thats called medling and it is a complete reversal of the message he has spent a lifetime trying to relay.
-
My original point was that Attenborough had contradicted his lifetimes work by supporting a theory that we should do everything in our powers to freeze climate change where it is now. He spent a whole lifetime telling us that climate changing was the main entity that kept the whole living world fighting fit by forever testing species to the limit. Without the constant change then life would become less able to deal with a realy hard shock. Change is essential basically he said. Now he has subscribed to the crackpot theory that change is bad he has completely muddied the waters.
-
It's not just one person though, it is the best sceintific knowledge we have that says we are the most intelligent species.
Of course other animals are intelligent. Hell, scientists now reckon an octopus is more clever than a 10 year old and i certainly don't deny that other species aren't super intelligent. As you say we have the intellect to understand what we are doing and the consequences of our actions, thus we should also be clever enough to limit the negative effects of our actions.
Other species understand this too and they also nuture their environment to produce maximum yields for their own benefit. We are doing no more and no less to ensure our survival than any other species. To suggest that we are more intelligent, more superior, more productive, more influencing etc, etc is no true. Its simply inflated ego stuff which has no bearing in the real world.
When a natural upheaval comes, it wont make the blindest difference that one is human. Its all in the mind, we will be wiped out just the same.
-
Yes, but some more than others. Science shows that we are very likely the most intelligent species on this planet. As such we should be intelligent enough to know and understand our impact on our environment. It does not take a rocket scientist to grasp the notion that by looking after what is essentially our survival, the best we can (not saying you can't drive etc) is the best option for the continuation of our species.
Other 'higher' species like farm animals, chimps etc do not understand the effect their behaviour has on the environment outside their own little bubble.
Hell, even Darwin acknowledges this and says in a roundabout way a species key to evolution is progressing in it's own evolution whilst balancing the nature of it's surroundings.
I dont accept this just because somebody else has said so. All my observations have indicated that many species, infact almost all are just as inteligent. The only difference is that they have developed quite different skill sets with their minds which we lack and vica versa.
When it was first stated that man was the most inteligent, it was a time when Darwin himself was ridiculed. Little has changed, people are still simply aping the words of others. I dont accept that other animals are not as intelligent just because they dont do what we do.
The only difference between ourselves and most animals is that we have developed intelect.
-
What is your definition of intelligence?
To be able to make decissions for oneself and to change those decissions again at any stage.
-
No Village, you are being purposefully facetious now.
By higher species, I mean intelligence, awareness of our actions etc.
But you knew that.
All species are inteligent.
Without modern medicine a large number of us wouldn't be here (diseases quashed thanks to vaccination, hygene, clean water) or wouldn't have been born due to lack of resources?
So, our evolution become the survival of the most knowledgeable and resource rich not necessarily survival of the fittest (though what does 'fittest' mean now?) and, obviously, those of those who pass on their genes? But, only in humanities case? So we are one off?
Thats right Dev, however, we have weakened our species to the point where we are now very vulnerable. We will pay dearly when the next systemic shock comes along. nature will hold no prisoners. Other species will have no mercy on us. They wont care if they wipe us out if it benefits them.
-
Nature will win.
Nature is infinite, Humans will eventually go extinct.
The Earth is only a small part of natures infinite scale.
Happy New Year.
Yes, exactly my point and precisely why we have no time to loose. We are working rappidly to providing an alternaitve to living on this planet. If we dont develop a sustainable method of living outside of our planet then we are all doomed. Its clear from the history of the world that terrible things happen here and without an escape we will be consigned to the trash can of history along with everything else. We need to use the resources available to us. Once we have the alternative and its now within our grasp we can then ease back and play God games if we think we can or even should.
This, absolutely. I also tried to quote Boar on the last page under Village's reply to me but it wouldn't let me.
I think it's very dangerous to think that we should be able to carry on doing what we are doing simply because we are part of nature. Being the higher species that we are we should use what nature gave us to improve our world. To say we cannot control our actions or consequences of, is simply not true.
Do you have to be so patronising Village?
Patronising? these are your words not mine; " Being the higher species that we are"
So every other living thing is a lesser species according to you. This gives you a God given right or something?
-
But, unlike most life, we have the ability to see (and foresee) the consequences of our actions and to decide which actions we take.
Essan, Permit me to say so, but what you maintain here is the folly that I speak of above. Man does not have the ability to see longterm into the future and predict outcomes. The T value is the most important factor and is always undervalued by the AGW theorisers. Every cause has an effect which has causes and effects. Its like a stone into water and a ripple effect which is three dimentional and therefore laterally too indepth. Change the cause and you simply change the effects. But one cannot eliminate the effects unless one eliminates oneself. Seeing that you dont wish to kill yourself and niether does anyone else then its folly to make out you know how you can change the future.
In The News
in Climate Change
Posted · Edited by Village
The evidence is in the news for all to whitness.
Russia is the main supplier of natural gas for Europe. The European hub is in The Netherlands. The pipeline crosses the continent from east to west. The Russians have turned off the supply to a few east european countries in the last few years at times of extreme cold simply because of political issues....they can do it to Europe....its not a secret...its not a conspiracy...its common sense to understand that the west needs to be free from this type of behaviour. The same is true with oil supplies. Our North Sea supplies will run out soon....we will then be depending on the middle east for our reserves....the news is full of stories of political unrest in almost all of the oil producing countries in the middle east. Its a complete no brainer that our government has to encourage all of us to use alternative energy sources to oil and gas. Thats what they have been doing.
The west has been encouraging closed nations to free up their peoples and free up their markets for decades. The west cannot now be seen to do the opposite and restrict free markets by banning its own people from buying oil from other countries. So it must encourage the change in another way....along comes a wonderful theory about saving the planet...great...perfect...the government backed it with billions regardless of whether it was a fact or not because it does the job. Now every Joe Bloggs in the country feels guilty and wants to make the change to alternative energy by his own free will. Great...the western governments are now protecting our energy supplies by increasing our own alternative supplies and Joe Bloggs is paying for it too! Brilliant.
What more evidence does one need to be convinced?
Its all about securing energy for the west so that we can continue to grow without being held to ransom.
Its all in the news ....all of it...its not a conspiracy...its so obvious it slaps one in the face. Things dont just happen...there is always a reason for everything.
Just dont expect the western governments to spell it all out in the papers to make it easy for some to grasp. They wont do that because it will upset the apple cart.